Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Monday September 03, 2007 @03:33PM
from the not-quite-cattle-yet dept.

InternetVoting writes "California has passed a bill banning companies from requiring employees to have RFID chips surgically implanted. Already one company has been licensed by the federal government, implanting more than 2000 people. At least one other company — CityWatcher.com, a Cincinnati video surveillance company — already required RFID implants in some employees. 'State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) proposed the measure after at least one company began marketing radio frequency identification devices for use in humans. "RFID is a minor miracle, with all sorts of good uses," Simitian said. "But we shouldn't condone forced 'tagging' of humans. It's the ultimate invasion of privacy.'"

The MAJORITY of Germans were scared shitless by Hitler and didn't want to go to jail.

Hitler was arrested and then let out of jail early because of public support after publishing Mein Kampf. Sounds like he was pretty popular back then.

The MAJORITY of the world didn't want another fucking war; hindsight is 20/20.

Japan, Germany, Italy all did, they got the shaft after WWI and nearly every historian who has studying the subject knows it. Stalin wasn't going to start one on his own, but when Hitler starting making moves, he joined in. North Africa and the Middle East were wildly split between wanting war (Lawrence of Arabia anyone?) and keeping the peace (Turkey obtained independence in the 1920's and was busy rebuilding).

The MAJORITY of the Germans didn't know their government was committing such atrocities.

What you mean like the Nuremberg Laws? Which were LEGALLY passed by the German government? Which were passed in 1935, four years before WWII.

Go take a post-WWI history course if you want a perspective of the general sentiment pre-WWII. The world was an angry, frustrated, annoyed place after millions of people died just to (largely) maintain the status quo.

You are confusing some Roman terms with the modern usage of the same terms.

First off the Senate in Rome was never democratic in nature, even in the days of the Republic, never mind during the Empire. The Senate of the United States bears almost no resemblance to the Roman Senate. (Argumentative old men not withstanding).

The democratic radicalism that destabilised the later Roman Republic was not embodied by the election of senators but through other more popularist institutions. The political structure of the Roman Republic was fairly complex, it had been in existence for around 500 years by the end.

Plebeian was not a class distinction, it was a distinction of descent. Some families were 'Patrician' by descent, others 'Plebeian', it was a hangover from some early Roman history. By the late Republic the distinction had zero bearing on wealth, influence or political power. Class distinctions were made on property qualifications, i.e. land ownership and income.

This is all a bit by the by as in the middle and late Imperial period (which is the period the poster was describing) any vestiges of the old Republic were exactly that, vestiges. The Emperor was an absolute monarch and the Senate was an advisory talking shop of yes-men appointed by the Emperor, at best.

You have to remember the timescales here. From the early Republic to the days of Augustus is a period of about 500 years. That is a lot of complex history. Then from Augustus to the fall of the Western Empire there is another 500 years. The time of Senatorial government in Rome is separated from the period described by the previous poster by the same length of time that separates modern United States history from Columbus' voyages.

Dude, do you even realize that you're trying to tell someone who actually lives down here that you know better than him how his country works? Heh. It's like me telling one of your astronauts that I know better than him what riding a space shuttle is _really_ like. Geesh.

And really... the rich classes are for socialism? Heh. Well, I'm glad that they'd approve of the fact that here in Germany unions are officially given a lot of power and get a say in how corporations are run. I'm soo sure that if you took a random CEO from the USA, he'd be _totally_ for that. I'm sure your CEOs would also be _totally_ for excellent unemployment benefits, socialized medical care, very harsh anti-trust regulations, and all that other socialist stuff we do here.

I'm also sure they'd _totally_ be for the lower GINI index we have here, meaning, pay attention, that the rich make less money than in the USA (and pay more taxes, too) and the poor make more. Why, the biggest nightmare of the average USA CEO must be that he can't convince the politicians to take more of his money and give it to the poor. I'm sure they're lobbying for that day and night.

I just wonder why they in practice rant and rave against it, and pay think-tanks to attack that.

That was sarcasm, btw.

Lorded by the upper classes and used to it? Heh. Well, blimey, all those strikes and unions must be the workers trying to make their masters more powerful. I'm sure they're on strike to demand to be lorded over.

Heh. Dude, you just proved in one fell swoop that you have _zero_ clue how Europe works, you have _zero_ clue how socialism works, etc. I'm sorry, I wish I had something nice to say, but it's just so stupid I don't even know where to start. Learn how the world really works, lemming, before lecturing others abut how their country works. Hallucinations, propaganda falsehoods and Hollywood movies don't quite qualify as primary sources, you know.

And here's a parting idea: if you _really_ want to know why the economy changed in the 30's look up the Great Depression [wikipedia.org] and Keynesian Economics [wikipedia.org] some day. Might give you some actual data as to why those changes were necessary. And why the countries which spent more (e.g., the USA with its New Deal, or Germany with its rearmament) got out of the Great Depression fast, while those who stuck to lean mean government ideas (e.g., Canada) enjoyed a jolly good depression until the 40's.

_That_ is what happened in the 30's. Not some rich men's conspiracy to give some money to the poor, but just the fact that the old economy became no longer functional. If you drew two curves, (1) how much you produce vs production costs, and (2) how much you want to sell vs the price at which people will buy that much, the two just became _parallel_. Aggregate supply had just outstripped aggregate demand, and there was no price point or production value at which you could even break even. _That_ is why the economic model had to be patched, and fast.

I mean, again: if you're going to criticize something, be it the economic policy or other countries, it might help if you actually have any clue what you're criticizing. Attacking strawmen and bogus conspiracy theories is only funny so far.